Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds meaningful context: the deletion is 'permanent' and limited to user-authored spells. This goes beyond the annotation hints and clarifies an important behavioral boundary. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and the key restriction are both stated up front, and every word contributes to the agent's understanding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter delete operation with annotations covering destructive behavior and an output schema present, the description is complete. The permanent-deletion warning and stock-content restriction give the agent the essential operational context it needs.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already fully documents the single `id` parameter as a Mongo `_id` with 100% coverage. The description mentions deletion 'by id' but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a user-authored spell by id.' It also adds a scoping constraint ('Cannot delete stock content') that clearly distinguishes the tool's intended target from other content types. This is easily differentiated from sibling tools like vault_delete_character or vault_delete_rule.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description makes the key usage condition explicit: only user-authored spells can be deleted, and stock content cannot. It does not name alternative tools, but the resource-specific scope and the exclusion are sufficient for an agent to decide when this tool applies.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.